Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite no annotations, the description clearly explains how accent strength is determined (downbeats strong, off-beats weak) and the interpolation for notes between beats. It also mentions the return value (count of notes accented and per-level breakdown), providing transparency beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with sections for main functionality, differentiation, accent patterns, use cases, parameter list, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers both parameter semantics and return value ('Returns count of notes accented and per-level breakdown'). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'strong_velocity: Velocity for strong beats (0-1)'). While not exhaustive, it adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('beat-aware velocity accents to notes'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'apply_velocity_pattern' by explaining the difference in accent determination (beat position vs note index).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly contrasts with 'apply_velocity_pattern' and provides concrete use cases (e.g., making drum patterns groovy, adding natural dynamics to basslines). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the differentiation and use cases offer adequate guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.